tv Police Commission 92116 SFGTV September 26, 2016 7:00am-10:31am PDT
contradiction to planning staff advise which is continue the hearing prior to attending was because the project sponsors are at their whits end so came to speak today. >> i would recommend november 3 and i ran into germany pog and said he would work on this, is that true? >> i have spoken with mr. pog about the project but he [inaudible] >> i don't think we can set up here given the hair on the egg. november 3. >> is there is a second? >> commissioner moore? >> i wanted to ask that difficult to toss the public interest for preserving the few open spaces we have against adding a additional unit. one, i think the case for a additional unit needs to be made other than what is currently relative to street access and
independent [inaudible] at this moment you get to the unit through the garage or through the private entrance of the laundry room of the family above, so this needs to be rethought in a manner that creates a equitable unit. i throw that out because you have [inaudible] in other presentations that is a minimum requirement this commission is looking for. i think the issue of really coming to toorkt with the department is policy issue of what we are doing with open spaces and how to protect them given there is no additional room to squeeze out open space. sthis is something we are stuck with and for you to have a shadow analysis on the critical day zs to reflect the height but that isn't what is in front of us. i put that forward to the department. i think i do
not hear anybody wants to deny the praunlect it just needs to be more [inaudible] >> commissioner hillis. >> there is a motion seconded to continue this matter to november 3 with the commissions direction. [roll call vote] so moved, motion passes unanimously 7-0. places on item 17 for 2015-000487. this is discretionary review. >> good evening. [inaudible] umit was brautd to our attention that the poster for the notice blew off thin wind wednesday and was
not replaced by the applicant was out of town. after speaking with the zoning administrator we need to continue this because it has not been complete noticed so the project sponsor representative and dr representative are here and think they have come to an agreement upon date i believe it was december 15 but think if the commission has questions they can probably formally request a date if the commission secretary can accommodate that. >> can the commission secretary accommodate that sh >> i can pencil it in but strongly advice against december 15. the reason be is you are scheduled for a joint hearing with rec and park at 1 p.m. expected to take all day. you have 3 items currently that we will try to
sceez squeeze add 10 a.m. before rec and park, squeezing in a dr is up to you. if we cant get to it the condition it is continued to the new year, that would be my advise. >> i like to-can we look at the first date in january? >> assuming you don't cancel. >> january 5, right? >> right. >> motion to continue to jan 5. >> second. >> commissioner moore. >> could you clarify we have what meeting on the third and one on the 17th because earlier today i heard we have a closeed meeting on aau on the third and somebody said the 17th. >> november 3. >> you have meetings both days. the closed session
november 3 and- >> you say we have a meeting with the health department? >> there is a couple different things. december 15th is when you have the joint hearing with rec and park on the natural areas plan which we expect to be a multihour hearing. there is a joint hearing with the health commission i forget what day that is. >> with the health commission that is coming november 17 and i will note if you take a peek at your calendars when i send thept out there is a number of joint hearings and will be a additional joint hearing with rec and park. your calendar-you are very full through the end of the year. >> as long as we have it somewhere. appreciate your clarifying it. >> very good. there is motion
can you please turn off your electronic devices as they tend to interfere with the equipment in the room. can you please rise for the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. vice-president turman, i would like to call roll. >> please do. >> commissioner president loftus is
excused. vice-president turman, commissioner marshall, commissioner dejesus, commissioner mazzucco, commissioner hwang, commissioner melara. >> ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the wednesday september 21, 2016, police commission meeting. as sergeant has just informed us president loftus is not here this evening. let's go to item 1. >>clerk: item 1 question of the chief
of police to accept donation of a 2009 traverse from san jose police department to be used by the sfpd internet crimes against children valid at approximately 6386. request of lieutenant rene pagano. >> we have item 1 which is a donation of a chevrolet traverse and the other item 4 coffee mugs to be used
in the coffee room. any questions? public comment on the consent calendar, please. public speaker: this is one of the major issues that is going back for the police academy for non-payment to protect children and environment because of a report as interfering with all these and carried out professionally which they always have
different ideas. some of these ideas wasn't professional of the police academy in that which we should have done. this is one of the more reasons why it has been out spoken out form. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, the consent calendar has been moved for acceptance by commissioner melara and second by commissioner mazzucco. i believe a voice vote is acceptable. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. the items on the consent calendar are
accepted. i'm sorry, i forgot to say at the beginning and i had already informed secretary that public comment will be 2 minutes this evening because of the many items on the agenda. secretary, next item, please. >> item 2 reports to the commission discussion to a, chiefs report. this item is to allow the chief of police to report on recent police department activities and make announcements. update the professional standards bureau in regards to collaborative review status bureau organization. update regarding civil grand jury report san francisco's crime lab promoting confidence and building credibility. report regarding the blessing scam. >> i will bring up my report and i will try to be brief on my basic report. for homicides this year we are down, our shootings are down
4%. gun violence and homicide by firearms are down 15%. crime citywide is down 14%.ch robberies are down 17%, firearms seized year to date are 104. total firearms seized since summer is 78. burglaries are down 29%. there was an assault on a police officer on the 300-block. of eleven worth. there was a call for help. they sprayed the officer with an
extinguisher. the officers were treated and released. for shootings, we had one on the 1400-block of sunny dale on 9/15, at 7:55 p.m.. folks heard gunshots. the victim was located with a gunshot wound to the right side and in stable condition at san francisco state hospital. the next shooting on ham stead with no arrest made. officers responded to a shots fired call. the gunshot victim was between two parked cars. medics transported the victim to the hospital and was in stable but in
critical condition. the other was on cannon street with no arrest made on the 17 approximately at 12:14 a.m.. officers were dispatched to the area of 15 shots of turk and buchanan street. two people were transported to the hospital and 1 person had a laceration and the second victim a gunshot wound. our team receives physical evidence. the other shooting was on september 18, 2016, at approximately 2:15 a.m.. the officers were notified by shots fired activation of 6-7 shots. upon arrival, 13 bullet casings were located but no victims were
found. the next shooting incident on the 1500-block of wallace avenue. that was 9/18. it was at 9:00 p.m.. the initial investigation revealed that subject one admitted he fired a gun while pointing to the sky. they contacted csi for pick up. there were two subjects booked for that possession of the firearm discharged in a negligent manner. as homicides for the year we are at 31. we are down from last year. there was a homicide an no arrest was made. this is where the victim obtained injuries about a month ago and didn't make it from those injuries. on august 23rd, of this at
approximately 12:55 an officer was dispatched to a person yelling and screaming. he was found with trauma to the head. with that, that will end my report, and i will now call captain conley up to update with the bureau with the police status and bureau organization. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening, vice-president turman, director hicks, chief
chaplain. i'm from the police bureau. it will be a very brief presentation. these are the items that are going to be covered tonight. the training manual featuring the police content. collaborative review. the white house police data initiative. the d oj recommended transgender training video. additional training, updates on body worn camp race, impartial policing and blue courage, and update from the crisis intervention team and youth recruitment and the occ recommendations in response to commissioners dejesus request a couple months ago. first of all, the department of justice released in july and
august 4th manuals. the united states department of justice released four manuals in which best practices are outlined. the four manuals how to increase understanding, how to work in -- how to serve diverse communities, and how to support trust building in your agency. and combatting youth violence in american cities. some of the highlights include obviously the sf p.d. mediation policy. we had some come in with a complaint and talked through the process and the opportunity to educate the public and offer remedies for those problems. outline blue courage which is a philosophy talked throughout the nation. we are heavily involved in it by teaching our members and
external agency about what blue courage is. community policing is a model taken from new york back in the 90s as is developed to what is today and we have a work in progress and we continue to improve on that program. there is a two page write-up about the san francisco police department and the mayor's office talking about the ipo program which is the interrupt, predict and organize crime reduction strategy. that is an award-winning strategy. if you look at the fourth manual on youth crime, it outlines that our crime reduction paid off. we had a 36% drop in homicides from 2012-2014 . the collaborative review which the department of justice is reviewing department areas of use of force by police and
procedural justice, supervisory and accountability. they stopped collecting data since august. the last time was august 16th. we are very close to having a report issued within the next 6 weeks. we've already had implicit bias training. officers went through this in august. we have initiated through the training division, implicit bias division put on by the department of human resources demanded by the department of justice and all levels of managers and captains are in training. this is a snap shot that we created. this incorporates all reports
issued. >> [inaudible]. >> excuse me captain. dependence reading admonishment about interruption of the meeting this time. please there are to be no interruptions. if you have a comment, please do that during public comment. the next time there is an outburst, i will have the secretary read those rules. we will follow them strictly. >> this has gone through all the reports and gone through the recommendation from the blue panel and policing. we have identified all areas. we have a 15 page working document. we are waiting for the doj report to see where all of these recommendations fall under
the umbrella of the department of justice. white house police data initiative was another program that generated out of the 21-century policing president obama's report. essentially san francisco police department is one of 53 agencies of 15,000 law enforcement agencies involved in the data initiative. we are in frequent phone calls with the white house. in order to be involved in this program, we have to provide three data sets. that's the minimum criteria. so we provide traffic stop data, department demographics and officer involved shootings. this is the department website and it is accessible. it's a challenge to get it, but it's listed there. >> sir, please take your seat. sir please take your seat
immediately. i'm sorry, captain. secretary kilshaw, please read the admonishment. >> rules of order. members of the public entitled to comment on any action on the item. people have the opportunity to comment on items and have not been the subject of public comment on other items on the agenda. the president makes a reasonable time limit for each speaking depending on the complexity of the item and the number of persons to speak on the item. tonight's public comment will be limited to 2 minutes. speakers must speak from the podium and speak clearly into the microphone.
speakers are reframed from using profanity and yelling and screaming. members of the public should address their questions or remarks to the commission. neither the police nor personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions except when required to do so by the president. commissioners and personnel shall refrain from entering into discussion during public comment. applause and booing are prohibited. you may not display signs to impede the public oren danger any meeting participant. cameras and taping devices maybe brought in the room although you are prohibited from using camera flash that may disrupt the meeting.
disorderly conduct that disrupt the meetings such as making noise or speaking out of term or otherwise refusing to comply with the rules governing the meeting. boisterous conductor violent disturbance tending to disrupt the orderly course of the meeting. disobedience of any lawful order which shall include an order to be seated. >> okay. to the gentleman who had two public outburst and stood up twice during this meeting, i find this behavior disruptive. i am asking you to correct your before here after, if it's not done so, i will ask that you be removed from the proceedings. >> captain, please continue
and i apologize. >> thank you, commissioner, the next few slides. the next the department of justice has reviewed through their website transgender training video. we are planning to take that video into roll call training for personnel to improve our awareness of transgender public. we developed a draft transgender policy. >> i find this behavior disruptive. sheriff's officer please remove the individual from these proceedings. >> captain, please continue. >> thank you, commissioner. i'm almost
done. essentially we were able to bring the subject matter in a 48-hour period including humanity rights commissioner teresa sparks who provided valuable information to us and we have a draft department general order to making it's way through concurrence process and some point in the near future it will be presented to the commission for adoption. the bayview station with the body camera update. bayview station is 99.8 complete. they will be completed at training in the couple of weeks. the training is currently at the northern station and will continue in the next 4 weeks. by the time thanksgiving happens, the body camera program will have been introduced to all of patrol.
>> this first policy update currently the sfpd task unit reviewing a shield as a barrier during escalation situations. even though the shields represented in this slide are more of a riot type shields. they are not the type shields we'll be employing. it's just a visual aid. we are looking at different types of equipment. some of the best practices and similar policies in exploring at different agencies including the international community. the crisis intervention team has moved to the office bureau because it's primarily a patrol based function. it is a better place, a better resting home for that unit and the direct involvement with field operations. discussions continue with the mental health working group and the
policy development phase and the department general order is still in the development phase at this point and it will be coming to you at some point in the future. recruitment efforts. again, in response to commissioner dejesus questions about our recruitment efforts. we follow the california peace officer standard guidelines, 21 years of age with a high school education. this is done primarily not to exclude personnel or people who might otherwise be ineligible. if we request a component from the onset, that might exclude potentially communities of color who might not have that requisite. we follow that standard and we have quite successful rate of bringing people in. in 2015 alone, there was 227 recruitment engagements and the events are obviously listed there from community events to job fair
to say and what not. community college, state college, private schools. we are aggressively seeking out candidates. and from july, beginning of july to end of august, we had 419 candidates signed up expressing interest. that's quite a few candidates. realize we are targeting the same group of people that all agencies are targeted. our challenge is ahead of us. again, boot camp and testing process. we are preparing candidates for the testing process and entry process. there is one new component mobile advertisement. a collaboration where someone receives information on their smartphone within the bay area, it will pop-up with the san francisco police recruitment notification. it's a pop-up. okay, now we are coming to
the end. occ identified 19 recommendations in response to president's 21st century police report. the police department responded to 18 recommendations. these 19 recommendations although i don't have a slide for them are integrated into the "matrix" i showed you earlier. there is every intention to continue collaboration not only with occ but other authors to ensure they are covered under the department of justice collaborative review. again, additional policies, these are all living policies at this point. they are all integrated and we continue to have discussions. that is the presentation. >> thank you, captain conley. do you
want to have questions per? >> chief, we'll ask you back up for questions shortly. >> thank you, captain, up next is deputy smith with regard to the san francisco report from the crime lab and reporting credibility. >> deputy chief smith, good evening. >> good evening commissioners, director hicks. this is a brief update to the status of the civil grand jury report on the crime lab. to kind of give a run up since this is the first time we reported on it and the 2015-2016 civil grand jury chose a project, a study of the crime lab. in the first quarter of 2016, they undertook a study visiting the lab which was at the naval
shipyard, d. a.'s, public defenders and people from the industry at large. they finished up that review in march and started working on the report and produced the report june 1st, titled crime lab and promoting compatibility. the city administrator was tasked to present the report to john k stuart on july 31st. on september 1st, we appeared before the board of supervisors, government and oversight committee where supervisor peskin and march had a presentation from us on the content of the report and a question and answer question to clarify their response. the report itself is accessible on the civil grand jury website. our responses, we published to the presiding judge and put those on the website. they are also available here for the
public. the area is covered in the report. included management of the lab starting from the leadership to the oversight of the work and the work processing systems. the technology and equipment we used mostly focusing on our case management and how we track what we do. the communication with stakeholders and the public including how we reflect priorities and needs. stream lining of work, educating the public and communitying with survivors. and scientific outreach to the greater community out in san francisco. there were 22 total findings and 23 recommendations in the report. in the findings you agree or disagree. there was no response. that once certified us as we held
certification for the last 5 years. of the 20 remaining findings we agreed with 60% of them. there were changes in the penal code that tightened up timelines for responding of processing for sexual assault case evidence and that complicated the forensic case in general. no one disagrees with it. it's true. we disagreed partially with four of them and we disagreed wholly with four of them. with recommendations, there were 23 total recommendations. it's a little different recommendations. those are suggestions solutions to what they believe is the issue. you are either tasked with saying that you implemented the recommendation, that you have not yet implemented it but you will. that requires further analysis or that it will not be implemented. again, one required no responsible because it congratulated us
for meeting the iso standard which is the national standard. and three required the city administrator or controller response. we are not within our purview. of the 19 remaining, 60% of them we said we already implemented. another one was in process of being implemented. that was a website and a customization. both were implemented or close to being implemented. seven of them required further analysis. most had to do with staffing analysis. they were recommending solutions and more analysis on how the staff had to be carried out needed to be done before implemented. one would not be implemented and that would have to be the reporting structure reporting before the forensic director.
i can talk about that as we get to that position. the latest status then, a new facility. as you know in 2014, there was a bond approved for earthquake safety improvement. $165 million project to purchase land through the architectural design and construct a brand new crime lab for san francisco. this lab will be state of the art. it will have all the disciplines, dna, impressions, alcohol and narcotics. it collocates csi so all can be done in the lab. it also provides space for the expansion of the new multimedia evidence unit. as you know we are relying more and more on video evidence in our
cases and all has to be processed so we get the best evidence from it. so that facility is in the final stages of the design review with the architect. in fact yesterday we hosted a jury review of the plan and had final recommendations and taken that back for what it presented for the neighborhood. the new building will be on evans. there is a building there now but it will be taken down and there will be a brand new structure. it also will house a brand new traffic division. earthquake concerns being the funding for this property. other areas is the leadership question. we believe for the discipline of forensics to serve this city, we must establish a business model with an individual with a strong scientific background and demonstrated management skill for personnel, budget
and objective processing of evidence. with that window we have taken to the department of human resources the process which to identify the person and select and hire that person. so, we have identified the position we are going to use for the structure, the funding for the position, bm 2's are developed for the position working with h r and contacted bob murray and associates, search committee. thank you. who will run this for us. we had our kickoff meeting to define the process. dhr is manning the contract for us. it's lined out as a 16-week process and we are under way for that process. this forensic's services director will over see the totality of the forensics services division including the crime
lab itself, csi and identification. >> staffing. there were a number of recommendations which dealt with staffing for the crime lab. several of them dealt with the quality of the divisions manager making sure you are doing the right training and testing if you are staff. and for a number of reasons, they believed that we didn't have that position filled. however that position is fill and continues to be filled by a full time quality assurance manager, and that person has had the full training and interacts with members of the forensic community throughout the country and the local bay area. that was in the number of recommendations and that was not an issue for us. initially the report speaks to needing more staffing to handle the level of work especially in
the area of dna that is focused a lot and we agree. as you know, the hiring process is complex for the city and also in this discipline, it's very difficult. it's very competitive field. however, we have hired this fall six new dna analyst for the police department's crime lab. four of them have started employment out at the lab and started their training. one more is coming at the end of next week and the third moving from out of state starts in october. this is a great refresher to the dna lab. it takes quite some time to get through the testing and accreditation procedure so they can be on board to fully absorb the work, but that process has started and continues for these six dna analyst position. the firearms position is more difficult with recruitment. we are working with the right
manager to make sure we get that level. we continue to move forward on id position. we have a strategy for bringing people on bored -- aboard and timeline so we are not duplicating efforts. among the tasks that we are going to have for the forensic director will be a plan to cover multiyear. that is on the planning based on the level of work we get and based on the growth and development on the different disciplines in the industry. to hire the right amount of people and bring them on the series and support the work at the lab while developing new talent at the lab. that will be something we'll ask this individual that we select for this position. just recruitment selection and hiring
of these specialized positions is very labor intensive, but in the end you hire the right person because it is so important. technology, one of the main reasons they focused on technology was case tracking. imagine for every piece of evidence that we touch, it goes through several processes, it goes through the hands of several different folks and it maybe outsourced and come back. all of that has to be tracked from start to finish. we did not have in the lab an automated tracking system at the time the grand jury was out. we were in the process of acquiring one. that position has been made. we are in the final customization phase and will allow us to indicate results more efficiently. it's a game changer for the people in the lab. it's great for the
lab system. it's going to turn a lot of their work around a lot faster. the report actually as the recommendation said that sfpd technology division should make this work, but it was the vendor edification to be done. another area was communication on the public side of it, they rightly pointed out that we did not have a presence on the website. the civil grand jury that came to the board of supervisors was he said nice stuff. we have a crime lab content group at the lab and they are in the last stages of putting forth what will be our new crime lab page that covers all the areas of the crime lab.
that should post next week on the department's website. it covers everything from the history and the mission and the different disciplines that we do and also the last part looking at some of the cases that we have done and the lab looking at good outcomes. we developed the chop, process, to communicating results on code us hits back to the bureau to relate back to the district attorney's office or to survivors in this case. so that was something we did work on with our internal technology to get that information out more quickly. that's about it. any questions? >> just hang deputy chief. we are going to come back to
you as he finishes the rest of the report. >> the last part of the chief's report will be the blessing scam from our special victims unit. >> good evening, captain bailey. >> good evening. vice-president turman and commissioners. i'm captain bailey with the special unit. i'm here to give you an update on the blessing scam. first off, because it's an open investigation i can't really comment on the actual specific cases, but i can tell you that they are a high priority within our unit. any blessing scam that has come in has been immediately signed. we are lucky to have an cantonese investigator who has been involved with all of these investigations. we have been collaborating with the
district attorney's office and specifically with the district attorney investigator jason column who is the guru of the blessing scams. he's been tracking it pretty much worldwide and within the u.s. he too the cantonese speaker and we've been using him and reaching out to the victims. what i want to say is that we have been working collaborating also with our captain's paul yip and david lazar from central and richmond station which were the two directs that were victims of these four blessing scams that we had this year. they have done an extraordinary job of reaching out to the public between press conferences and using the chinese community to get the message out. one thing i want to say that
back in 2012, the last time we had these blessing scams, we had 47 cases. i think in light of the fact that we only had four reported cases in 2016 and although anyone is one is too many, i want to say that that's an indicator that the outreach that the sfpd have been doing is obviously working. and that's pretty much -- we are making head way with the cases, but because it's an open investigation i can't really comment on the exact head way. >> thank you, captain bailey. if you can please take your seat. >> that concludes the chief's report. >> colleagues, questions on
the chief 's report? commissioner melara? >> yes, i had a question from captain conley about the recruitment efforts. it was my understanding there are certain populations that are harder to recruit from. i remember with chief suhr mentioning the fact that we had a hard time recruiting asian women, for instance. so, considering that you are doing some boot camps, mock interviews and testing process preparation which is a great thing to do, i'm wondering if there is a plan to collaborate with community agencies who might be interested in doing some recruitment with us in those communities. >> first of all, yes there is quite a bit of collaboration occurring on a daily basis. we have a number of our sworn personnel who are
bilingual. some are evening trilingual and they go to these events and reach out in the process. there is an educational component to it. there is what the candidate need to have in order to be a qualified candidate. there is a great bit of outreach and education involved . >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner hwang? >> i just want to follow up on that issue. i want to commend you for the wide diversity of projects that your bureau is undertaking. i realize this is an overview and you are waiting for a lot of other reports to come in before we sort of finalize. i guess what i'm looking for is some radical reform and just on the recruitment issue, it seems like what we have seen from the blue ribbon report we've lost
ground over diversity over the last year that we are less diverse than 2013, it seems like the target from the recruitment fairs, the bulk was still done in veteran centers which would not draw women and people of color. are we doing something different of losing diversity in the department. >> commissioner, i think the entire process is evolving and looked at past practices. >> deputy chief? >> regarding the recruitment, we've been focusing on african american recruitment. so my recruiter just came back from the historical
black colleges like spillman and clark colleges and they just came back and they had a very big response. we had like 50 applicants. i'm going back to georgia because i found out that in the bay area there is a lot of african american students that go back to georgia to go to college. >> there is a lot of historical black colleges in the atlanta area. >> yes, we are going back again to several colleges and they want us to bring back their students. i'm very excited about that. regarding the asian recruitment, we were just at the moon festival last week and there were about 70,000 people in attendance over the weekend. we did get about 40 applicants. really hard to get asian females, i
think it's because of the culture but we are trying some new things like computer impressions, it will automatically come no matter what website you hit. >> i think as far as some of the recruitment efforts we did as far as the legal profession, we look at the whole pipeline. i'm wondering if we are tracking who is expressing initial interest, how far they make it in terms of the application process. have we looked to see whether or not perhaps candidates of color are interested in applying but not making it through a recruitment process. >> we just started tracking that in january. we are calling our recruits back to fine out what's going on. i don't have the numbers with me right now, but i can definitely do a follow-up and let you know. >> maybe i can answer part of that too. just anecdotally, some
of the classes we have seen now and in past commission meetings, people who have attended those classes there has been more diversity than we have seen in the police department. we have 24 in the academy now. if you look at those classes now, the diversity is tremendous. we myself and the mayor, he commented on the number of different ethnic groups present in the academy classes. this is all from our website as of february 11th. right now, we are at 22.3% asian, 9% african american, 15.7% hispanic, 15.7% white. we are still above the demographics of san francisco, but obviously we are still out recruiting. it's a
tough environment. as you have seen in news, san jose police department and it's just a competitive environment out there and we are looking at people through the pipeline. as far as the background process goes, we hired an a coach a while back from university of san francisco. he's bringing applicants and as deputy chief tom said, we are hitting the colleges and we also have a full page ad in the college monthly magazine, unfortunately so does the new york state police a few pages back from ours. we are recruiting in just about every diverse community out there. we are trying to find out why they are dropping out of the process. i can say anecdotally, some of the folks that talked to us of color, it's
the climate nationally and family is pushing them away from the table from coming to policing. >> a complaint that i heard a lot about and actually i got an e-mail about this week was the background process, right. how their applications get lost there and they never get a response as to whether or not they have been accepted or rejected. they go into this background process and they never get a response. i thought if you thought about changing that process. >> i looked into that process. there was a woman in the position and i can't go into that personnel matter, the reason why they got lost and the reasons they didn't want their families to know. they were
disqualified for very good reasons. they didn't make it through the process. part of the process, we seated an academy class that was half way, it was roughly 25 people, we agreed to see half a class because we didn't want to fill it with just anybody. looking through the backgrounds they had issues that quite frankly we weren't comfortable putting those people forward because they didn't fit the standards that we have in place now to ensure that we are not hiring substandard candidates. >> they don't get notified? >> they do get notified. the problem is they receive the notification and it's up to the candidate to disclose the qualification to family and friends. unfortunately they often don't. you know as coach, we can't tell him, some of the folks that he's pushed and he was unaware of and we
could not make him aware of them because they are confidential matters. that's in the high 90 th percentile for personal reasons. >> i don't want to know the reason, but is there a way to track them through the process. we can use an anonymous tracking number. we don't have to hear the names. i hear anecdotally that people are getting lost in the process. we should track them through application to completion. >> we are starting that right now. we'll look at it. >> the other two things that jumped out at me in terms of your report, one again was from the blue ribbon report an indication that two other reports done that the stop data that we are collecting 35% on stops which
undermines our ability for how we do reforms if we have only limited stop data. >> there are certain stops not recorded at the time. i'm trying to think of what they are maybe on view 647 like drinking in public. i don't think those are, those are citations but not recorded in the stops. i think, i sure there are some that are not recorded, but i don't think the number is high as it should be. >> i realize this is a big overview. i don't want to spend a lot of time talking about this. the third issue popped up on me. maybe we can have another communication on this. from the blue ribbon report it indicated that the community don't feel like they are benefitting from community policing. i also spoke to some of the
veterans from the old policing unit that feel like it's watered down now and there used to be a different way we did policing. maybe we can spend a little bit more time on the details of it. >> all right. i have a lot of questions. not for deputy chief tom, but for conley. i appreciate your doing this and for the people at home, one of the things we are doing this for is there has been, we are trying to get a better understanding within the department of implicit bias and we certainly have allegations of racial profiling whether they are true or not. what we do is we have data and the data is going to do
chronicles and report it here and there. we have data for the last 5 years and the reason we ask for this report is some of that data that we've seen in the paper we've questioned you about. i think april was the time that we had some of these questions. so what i'm going to start asking you about is the data we already have is the last 5 years from 2010-2015, we should take that and organize in some fashion to see where these problem areas are and analyze them and strategize whether some of these tactics they are using and effective because some of the dakota particulars were destructive in the community. one of the things we talked about the overwhelming number of consent searches. i think if the data was right, it showed that african americans were more likely to be searched
with consent than white drivers and latinos searched four times the rate of white drivers. black drivers were searched more than four times than white drivers after being pulled over. i think you know a lot of these statistics already. it looks like the department is far more likely to search african american and latino drivers but no more likely to find contraband. one of the questions i think what we should look for in the future and the department should do is take the information you have already and kind of reorganize it so that you have it and it's presented in a revised data that shows the same information broken down by traffic division versus non-traffic division personnel. i forgot how many stops there are but many stops. the division comes down to
the traffic versus non-traffic. it would be interesting to see how many of these consent searches from the non-traffic division. if the current data base allow you should breakdown the non-traffic issue data further not only where the geographic stops but also by the officers assignment by station and specialized unit. and if it's coming from the station to better pinpoint the possible sources of the problem. it's coming from the non-traffic division and the specialized units is something you need to reevaluate and maybe do some more training there or evaluate whether that's even necessary. yeah, so, here is the number i was showing, the data shows the consent searches.
i think the chronicle reported that 87% of the time across all groups, these searches did not lead contraband on evidence of criminality. but it still shows that african americans were searched more. so, then one of these you can do is talk about these searches. they are not providing you with any criminality. are they really destroying the trust in the community and are you aggravating that situation. the department talked about the consent searches and specific crime fighting strategies and tracking evaluating for efficiency that damage community trust and legitimacy. to this degree we have reached that conclusion based on this tracking and review of these consent searches. the real question is can you tell us in your report can you tell
us whether these searches are continuing. one of the things i just talked about. and if you report on that, we can have a discussion. but if you have not reached that conclusion, actually, or evaluated that tactic, then you might want to talk about banning those traffic stops from the specialized units or the station houses. if you have the data organized in a different way you can decide whether you want to do that or not. >> i'm sorry, i can't figure out what you are trying to ask. >> i'm talking about organizing the data in a different way so we can maybe discern out of these 8,000 stops, most of them are african american or latino stops if they are done by undercover units or traffic detail which is their job, traffic detailing or if it's done by station cops or training personnel.
we can look at that and see whether or not if it's top heavy in certain area whether we are going to abandon that. and whether or not it's their job. this is vital. it's important and look at it in a different way. >> maybe the chief can clarify. >> it was already done and part of this report. we were asked to pair it down because of the length of the report. everything you just asked for is in the report. we would have been here until midnight because of how many slides. it's done. everything you asked for. >> all right. but that would have been good to have a highlight in a sentence tonight. that 8,000 traffic stops was done by a;b; c. i'm still not done. if it's all in there.
>> what's in there is the analysis from a 25-month period from 2013-2015 which the the chronicle article cover. we dug down deep in that between information between crime trends and traffic stops and consensual stops. there will be a broader contextual understanding of why. in terms of aggregating data between those that write those citations, those are data trying to track that information and thirdly using the methodology we use to provide the content to that stopped data which will be presented in the future. i have order the crime unit to carry on from the period of january 1st to see if there is a correlation
between the stops and the historical change . i want to express my thoughts. if you have done that it's great. what you haven't these are ideas and maybe we shouldn't have asked you to lessen that because these are critical areas. >> i just want to say this is an overview report. if you want a specific report in specific areas, i think that's a great idea to show what reports you like. >> thank you, i appreciate that. one of the things and i don't know if this is a policy analyst that we have and maybe borrow from the occ's policies. the question i have, i understand the chp and other agencies have banned the search from other traffic stops. i don't know if that's accurate or not, if they have, wondering why they have and we should look for the basis on why
they have banded it. that's something i would be interested to know, why did they ban it and why. if we are going to continue with these consent searches we should design a form and multiple languages with these traffic stops that clearly indicates to a person that they have a legal right to refuse consent for prolonged attention and/or threat of arrest. that's great. because we have a dispute people saying they didn't give consent and they did. that would help. and then this has come up from between. this has come up when you saturate the communities when there is a shooting or we have saturation in the community where we have the traffic
division, undercover division in there, the stations in there and talking to bayview and the mission, i don't know to the extent, but have we really analyzed when we do the saturation when we go in there and there is gang activity and there is occupations some people call it in the community. it is called saturation. do we have those periods of saturation and can we look at that and see at these special tactics and strategies the saturation has more contact, do we have more consent searches, do we have more 148 arrest and things like that. so unintended consequences of this saturation policy is what i'm looking at and how does that affect the community when there is a shooting and they get inundated with police and all of them are being stopped and
cars are being towed. how does that affect the community and do we want to reevaluate that. >> clearly one barometer of success in that is a reduction of shootings and homicides. >> i guess the question is how long does it continue. there is a balance here because these need to be looked at, two bad experiences for community members, they won't trust you forever and that's what we have, we have a big trust issue here. we need to look at the data we have. i'm almost done. in april we had an undercover police officer making a traffic stop and it resulted in a shooting. there is a doj 5.8
that has to do with traffic stops. i guess the question i have is that dgo being adhered to, is it being followed, reissued because they are not supposed tock -- to be making traffic stops. do we have information how frequently that's being violated. and other thing about undercover non-uniformed officers, are they, are body cameras being given to undercover officers or non-unit officers or are they being excluded from body cameras. do you have a policy in place. >> you've asked several questions. >> do we have any plans to deploy body cameras for officers that would
undermine status when taking enforcement action on the plain clothing officers signed to stations already deploying cameras, are they not required to wear cameras. >> in terms of plainclothes operators wearing body cameras are on an as needed basis. the chief will be able to speak to that. in terms of officers conducting traffic stops. they are different from traffic stops and felony stops. if there is a felony investigation and the officer is initiating that stop, every effort is made to bring in a marked unit, however if a circumstances dictate the need to pull that, it will be done for safety. >> so we are moving station
by station all the people assigned to patrol and body cameras issuing to them. obviously there are people who wear plainclothes but it doesn't automatically remove them when situations come into play. that's how we are training them. they were rolled out across the districts. >> okay. appreciate that. conley, from 2010-april 2015, the department made 9,000 arrest for resisting arrest. in situations where the suspects were not charged with a related felony which is a really high number for the department, but more importantly 45% of those arrest were african americans. this is data that the supervisors have been using and they
have been talking about. this is april 2015. so when it comes to 148, that is a big trigger for the eis and all kinds of different things whether we need retraining. but i'm wondering in the last from the 5-year period, do we have, let's say, has the department taken the occ and internal affairs cases especially involving improper searches and arrest and compile that in anyway with the specific amount of any disciplinary things that have been weeded out and in that vein also looked at the 5-year period for civil judgment comparing those to see if these 148 arrest why they are occurring and certain station
houses and particular stations and particular units doing that and adhering to the complaints of the civil settlements. that can give you an idea of disparity and training. >> there has been a recent discussion this week about identifying training deficiencies stemming from those occ findings from past civil litigation and identifying training trends that maybe needed and additional training that may need to be developed in conjunction with those findings. >> the last thing, i also want to comment on commissioner hwang talking about the data. i know the data is going to be collected, but that data is so critical. i wondering has the department thought about reissuing the bulletin requiring the data to be collected along with the notice that discipline can be collected especially when they are rolled out and
if there is no excuse not to have that information. will you put them on notice and telling them that this data is critical. >> in conjunction with filling out applications is going to be ruled out which we call beta testing sites. it's in draft form at this point. essentially we are looking at that data application, smartphone application will be in conjunction brought out by the board of supervisors and instead code in 1953 which is also mandating demographic tracking. we are trying to take that smartphone application and trying to expand it to capture all of the different areas. in fact, the technology department gave a presentation to the state department of justice in the past 2
weeks. they are static about it and they like the way it looks and feels and they are looking to adopting it as a statewide tool. we beat l.a. in this development. this is a big deal. >> i'm sorry it was cutoff because this is really important. if you can do it again and present what you already have and what else i have added to that and put it in some form so we can understand it and looking at it. will the when you are telling us about it to evaluate it and whether you are going to have training done and revelation when you compare the amount of rest and the amount of complaints in the amount of civil judgment. that's what i ask you to do. and just let us know next time it has to be a complete and thorough
report from you. >> first of all. i apologize because this was supposed to be an overview over several topics. this individualized discussion on consent searches, certainly can be agendaized. the previous presentation you prepared did not contain all of this information. neither you nor i were purview to mr. cruz letter. i only got to read it which covered most of the items we just heard about. we can certainly agendaize a discussion of consent searches, policies and procedures, statistical information and what it shows that saturation and other issues that commissioner dejesus has raised. and certainly she can confer with you on what that report should look like
and perhaps she'll pass mr. cruz' letter as well. >> i'm one of the people who have been concerned about the length of time that we take in presentations. and, it is irrelevant for us to sit here for a long presentation when the report could be available to you letting you know what is going to be discussed. the p -- public could have that information. we don't have to sit here through a lengthy presentation. the public has to wait a long time to give their comments when they could have the presentation ahead of time, they could then give their comments on the presentation and you actually could ahead of time you know like if you were interested in a specific area that you could send those items to the chief so that will be in the report and will be covered in a
written report. i know how to read. i don't need to be given a presentation on every single item. so i'm saying that 20 slides in an broad presentation is fine with me if i'm able to read the details ahead of time. thank you very much. >> let's keep it civil. >> thank you very much. thank you very much about the recruiting event. i was out there and saw the recruits out there. the recruiting effort is paying off. i'm very proud of the work that's been put in. all of us are recruiting. the reality is it is hard to find people willing to sacrifice
their life 24 hours a day. that eliminates a lot of people. that's why it's important. we are very diverse and we are very proud of what we are doing. you said something about the statistics. if we knew about the he context of the statistics it would surprise us. >> the surprise is if you look at the traffic stops in relations to shootings, homicides, part one crime and pursuits, you see the statistics are not as egregious as they appear to be if you put them in context with the other information within the district and within the city. so that's surprise being that it's not the huge surprise that people think it is. is is there still going to be higher numbers, absolutely. we are training people to identify what those
reasons are. >> one last question for you, commissioner dejesus has essentially spent the last 15 minutes reading the letter. i ask that when you do respond to this that you get a copy of that letter after you verify the statistics so you know what we are operating from. >> i received that letter as well. >> if you look at not only the data in the article but to span that scope and depending on the data sources we have to look at that after. >> commissioner hwang? >> i would agree with commissioner melara. it would be better to have the report to look at so we are not spending all the time here in the presentation and will give us also time to analyze and think about it instead of just reacting to it. if we are
done with the topic, i want to go to the blessing scams. >> go ahead. >> i have a question for either the chief or captain baile related to the blessing scams. i want to thank the captain for the report and i totally respect that there is an on going investigation. i don't have questions related to your investigation. my thinking in calendaring is that recognizing that it's a national issue and something that spanned a number of years. it's this epidemic that keeps rearing it's head in the last couple of years. what i'm looking is some kind of systemic response from the department. i'm speaking from my own experience as a da working with hate crimes and working with trafficking and ocu. it's important to have a person dedicated point person or unit within
the department that respond out citywide as opposed to have different districts to have a specialized unit that responds. >> i hope i understand your question. a special victims unit. the fraud unit is handling all the 4 cases. >> it's not being handled at richmond or central? >> no. to explain it better, three of the cases happened in the central. so hence captain lazar are in terms of educating the public. we go out to the press conferences as well and give our input as much as we can and then one of the cases happened in the richmond. we are also working with the captain there in the outreach process to the public in >>eddie: indicating them to what the
scam is about and today, we actually met with the district attorney's office again. we've been meeting with them on weekly basis in terms of the attorneys investigators like the guru. and we've come up with an additional plan in terms of one aspect that we have not maybe addressed is the banking. when a victim is victimized. the suspects walk these victims to the bank and we are going to begin an outreach program. i think this was done in 2012, it's nothing new. i'm not sure that we've done it this time. i reached out to captain lazar and yip and make sure that the banks begin to train their employees to recognize when an asian victim comes to the bank asking to access money and beware that these scams are
happening. >> the final thought, i know there are a lot of community leaders here that worked on these scam issues for many many years. i'm hoping that you will talk to them if you haven't already. from my work in the asian community, the community is very weary and very embarrassed to come to the police generally. it would be helpful to have a single face, the face of the police department with respect to the blessing scams. the 1 person they all know this is the person we can call. >> okay. >> it's easy for them to relate to an individual as opposed to an entire department. that's my hope that we can centralize and make 1 person even if they are not doing all the work but the primary point of contact. >> right , i think that's something we can definitely work towards. within
our fraud units we have two investigators and the cantonese speaking investigator is involved. when it comes to these investigations they are very collaborative in terms of how they work together. i hear what you are saying and definitely our unit is aware of the environment factor and our victims are slow and reticent to come and make a report. we are aware of that and that discussion came in today at the district attorney's office and how we can address that. i think that is definitely a consideration of having 1 person being the focus for the investigations. sure. >> thank you. >> commissioner marshall? >> my comment is much like commissioner melara. the way we work is we deal with agendaized items.
in order for us to have discussions on things they have to be agendaized. if you want a report on something, ask for it. we are pretty good for getting those things. so my suggestion is whatever it is that we want, ask for a report. we can drill down on it. but, that's the only way we work. my suggestion is that we get that agendaized items. ask for it please. >> i did ask for this report. this is the one i asked for. >> thank you. >> anything further, commissioners? >> madam secretary, next line item. >> item 2 b. occ's director report to
report on occ activities and make announcements. >> yes, good evening, vice-president turman, commissioners. last thursday i attended the board of supervisors government audit and oversight committee meeting to speak on the civil grand jury report into the open opportunities for more timely and transparent investigations of fatal officer involved shootings dated june 2016. i spoke to this commission last week about that report and provided it to you. as was addressed in our responses to the report and as i reported to this police commission last week and to the board of supervisors last thursday. the occ now has it's interviews
transcribed as a result of budget enhancements that were initiated by this police commission proposed by the mayor and adopted by the board of supervisors. also at last week's board of supervisors hearing i also reiterated the occ's commitment through transparency through improvements to our website and i indicate that occ was in the process of hiring an information's business system analyst assistant, civil service position at 1051. and finally i indicated that the occ is committed to provide as much information to the public on officer involved shootings as is legally permissible. the city attorney's office advises the occ on what is and what is not legally permissible under the state laws that protect the peace officer's privacy rights. that concludes my report. >> questions for director
hicks? >> you're welcome foreman >> -- thank you, director. item 2 c, commission reports, commission president's report, commissioners reports. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> last thursday evening i attended a community meaning at the presbyterian church and attended by supervisor mark farrell. we had 300 plus people at this meeting. these people came to say they were frustrated with police response times. they were tired of having their cars broken into. they were concerned about the number of people who are suffering
from mental health issues on the streets and a pregnant woman who is assaulted and feared for her life. we heard about the assault in lafayette park. we heard a different story than we usually hear here. there is 350 people and very worried about the safety of this city and worried about where it's going. supervisor farrell addressed that and talked about the police staffing and invited those folks to be here tonight. >> commissioner hwang? >> the chief and i attended an office for justice gospel choir fundraiser that was actually a lot of fun. we ended up staying for a long time and hopefully raised money for the kids and captain sanford is a
lot funnier than i thought. it was a great event. >> commissioners, any other reports? next line item. madam secretary. >> item 2 d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. action. >> commissioner hwang? commissioner dejesus. >> i don't know where we are with the eis. i think i asked for an eis report and i had asked for it a while ago. we've been so busy and it hasn't made it on. maybe we can get that on. >> i know that commissioner loftus had been discussing the on going. let's get an update on that and let everyone know when that will be scheduled if you can, please. >> okay. commissioner melara?
>> just putting another plug in for a safe place discussion. okay. >> yes, that was scheduled for this week, but the length of the agenda. we'll put that over. we have that on our list. >> commissioner hwang? commissioner dejesus? >> it was a mistake. >> i would just caution or advise our commissioner that we are putting stuff out. we are working like triple time. so just be advised to space things out. you know, this search is throwing off normal anyway. we are working on steroids. i would ask you to space these out. being here until 11:30 p.m.. 1:00 is not what we want the to do all the time. >> thank you very much. the
commission president is aware and working with the commission secretary and we are mindful that spacing is our priority to get everything done in a timely manner and get us all home by 2:00 a.m.. [ laughter ] nothing further. next line item. >> on that line item i would like to mention to the public there will be two special meetings october 1st and 2 and our meeting october 5th at 5:00 p.m. in room 400. item c discussion and possible action regarding civil grand jury report into the the open opportunities for more timely and transparent investigation. >> i'm sorry. public comment. >> you are right. my fault.
>> public comment on 2a,b;c and d. public speaker: good evening, i'm marlene tran, a member of the api police forum, ingleside station member and the spokesperson for the visitation asian alliance. in the late 1980s after i moved to district 10, shock reality set in when neighbors pleaded with me to organize meetings to seek help from law enforcement because so many crimes were committed against the non-and limited english speaking residents. this was the beginning of my community work. yes there are still many unreported crimes on this
population including a blessing, i learned that many of the blessings. the 15 residents to support the elderly victims. some of these were my former students and my neighbors. later i invited some of them to offer them help. for these elderly victims, to lose their so-called funeral funds caused a down spiral of mental health problems. last month two of the victims died very likely from grief. given the millions of dollars that these perpetrators have scammed from chinese seniors, they are back again.
given the scope, because of time i have to abbreviate this. given the scope of the repetitive of blessing scams, i urge the san francisco police department to issue a gang task force staffed with bilingual officers and try the cases and bring them to trial and stop these egregious crimes against our seniors. >> thank you, ms. fan. we have captain in the audience and you can talk to him about that as well. >> good evening, i'm with the civil rights commission in the district. i had the opportunity to join marlene as well as the chair of the state board of qualification and at least 20 community neighborhoods in
the portola last week. we talked about it that it is true when you look at the department in the special victims unit they have done a great job in making sure we don't return with those levels with the blessing scam an now it's back. just recent as last month, one of the four incidents, it hit a victim in the chinatown to the tune of $40,000. we know this is part of an international crime ring. we no when it happens in new york, it happens here next. new york within five instances, five families have been cleared out of $500,000. that's devastation on individual seniors. there is barriers of language access, there is barriers in the way these crimes are reported. we talked to the department to make sure the department has the resources to establish the asian task force
reestablished, and have a single point of contact to make sure these are filed and absolutely to have investigators there and to have bilingual intake officers to receive these complaints and to continue to expand that outreach. we can never let it get back to these numbers and we believe in giving the department the resources to house this unit within special victims unit to make it focused on these types of crimes specifically the blessing scam. we want you to be able to match list with this international crime ring with other cities to stop this before four becomes five, becomes ten to get back to where it happened before. we would love to work with you on that. >> thank you very much for your comments. we would love to and appreciate any support you can give us. you certainly put a lot of work into the the language access issues. this is a primary area that i
know the captain is talking about. please meet with them to discuss any kind of resources to make sure we get ahead of these blessing scams. please. thank you very much for coming tonight. >> next speaker. public speaker: good evening. thank you for this opportunity. my name is tom, i was part of the 2015-2016 civil grand jury that reviewed the crime lab. i wanted to build on what the deputy chief talked about today. over all we were fairly pleased with many of the comments that we received, and we think that the crime lab is moving ahead very nicely on improving some of the processes and
management information systems. i would like to talk to you about three other areas, one of which was discussed by the deputy chief, two of which were not. the first is that over the last 4-5, the crime lab has been led by a captain police officer, and that position has been one of constant rotation. in our report we talked about that since 2010 no fewer than six police officers have held a title of director of forensic services. this level of turnover in our view does not provide for effective crime lab
leadership. and in the report we recommended that the city move to a civilian scientist as head of the forensic lab. what you heard today from the deputy chief was they have begun that process. in the response that we received -- >> thank you, sir. that's only 2 minutes public comment. thank you. next speaker, please. captain smith is in the audience. if you have a comment to make to her, she will be there. deputy chief. excuse me. go ahead. public speaker: this is one of the reasons why a lot of the what
has been done in the past since 2001 because of this this is not education for the matter when there is poor education. and because of that, we have recycled over and over. it's never been changed because of the issue with that time which i have worldwide case that involve this and it's not easy even for that
public speaker: good evening, commissioners and chief of police. i'm living in the portola district 9. recently i heard a lot about the blessing scam. because that area has a lot of new immigrants and due to the culture chinese they believe the blessing will help them. so i really find out it's a lot of seniors that suffer a lot and request the policemen and the department to help this problem as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.. good evening, sergeant williams. >> good evening, commissioner, chief, i stand before you today again representing the officers for
justice. we have requested a report that we are normally given each month the demographic report and unfortunately it's been denied to us for the last 2 months. we feel it's a violation of the 21st century policing because it's supposed to be about transparency, accountability and accessibility. this is necessary to determine where our numbers are week to strengthen in terms of gender and ethnicity. if our department is going to be focused on a system that is grounded on the system of transparency, accountability and police legitimacy and information and data, it is very important that this demographic information be given to the police employee groups.
in fact, i don't understand why it is not just readily accessible also on the government website. it should not be something that we are hiding. it should be accessible to everyone so we know exactly how the ethnicities are broken down within this police department. thank you. >> i don't quite under why the report hasn't been, but it's actually a personnel matter. i'm going to refer you to department chief. >> with all do respect, i don't believe this is a personnel matter because it's been provided to us in the past. because of the interruption, i'm wondering if there is something going on within the department. i want to talk to deputy chief about
this and we'll look at it further. >> wait, i have a clarification, when you say demographics, i'm not sure what demographics you are talking about? >> we are talking about a demographics report given to us regarding our personnel number by ethnicity and gender what the breakdowns were by the various ranks. it would be good if we can have that available on the public website to see what the representation is. >> we can have that on the website, the basic demographics where i came from the sfpd website where it gives a break down for african americans and caucasians. i printed this from our website tonight. the one you are talking about, i believe we can access that through our databases. each officer can.
>> we can't no. access it. >> we'll get that to you. >> thank you. >> i mostly want to thank you for the responses. the issue of the consent stops and the reason of disparities. this was brought up and discussed in april. president loftus said let's try to report that every month. i stayed in touch with captain heart to find out when that would come up. captain heart went on a leave. president talked about it and said it was going to be there next week. and they put it off until next week and it was fine. i expected it to be here. we have a shortness of time, we are going to put it here again. that's all fine. i did not intend to
have a long discussion tonight. i would request that in due course and orderly fashion that you get to the substance of the issue. that is my intent. commissioner, if you have any questions, i have notes. >> thank you, next speaker, please. public speaker: tom gilberte, this idea of the blessing scam. do we have enough officers working with the wells fargo scam. that's been going on for 5 or 6 years. that should be taken care of. i was hired to do banking online and they took $6 a month out of
my account for 4 years. they did repay it. but on housing, i'm wondering how preferential housing is affecting our recruiting and our police force. how is that playing out. i want our policemen living in this city, community involvement with their kids, you know, growing up here. we need this. our city is losing because of profit tearing and real estate. the cameras, again, we are going to have to review the cameras. just on television two other events happening across the country with black men getting killed. we are up against the wall. the police officers are up against the wall with this. the cameras are going to be
stronger than the bullets. we need to get the videos out. i'm also wondering if the officer's review different shots, videos that have been filed with the cameras. can we see can we use this for constant new training and understand what's going on. the krit 40% of the police work. everybody is upset about seeing these mentally challenging people on the streets. we need a home base for these people. thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> secretary kilshaw, please call the next item on the agenda. >> item 3, discussion and
possible action regarding the civil grand jury report into the open opportunities for more timely and transparent investigation of fatal sfpd officer involved shootings june 2016. action. >> we have the report before us and i believe commissioner mazzucco i will defer the matter to him. >> last week we went through the recommendations from the civil grand jury regarding issues into timeliness of the investigations in officer involved shootings and i met with the members and staff and we at the commission meeting went over this and what our responses were and we had some responses we went through. we perfected them last
wednesday evening. there was some additions during our conversations. it was for an action item and discussion. sergeant kilshaw prepared the changes after our discussion. the result of our final discussion regarding this and the bulk of it is a lot we are waiting for from cops and the practices. we talked about things we already accomplished and things we can accomplish and talked about restrictions and what is being asked for is not the involvement of the police department, but the time of getting the reports from the district attorney's office. we prepared the answers last wednesday night. this is the final draft. is there any addition that you would like to make to this final draft that we have already discussed or additional
corrections? >> commissioner marshall. >> is there anything and i think i remember everything that we did indicate we were changing. anything you want to point out to us that's a little bit different from last week. sergeant kilshaw knows exactly where they are at. what we did in some matters we deferred to make the final report until we heard from the department of justice. that's only the changes we made. that's pretty simple. >> commissioners, any other comments? with that i will entertain any appropriate motions? >> i would move to adopt the draft letter dated september 15, 2016, and today's review of the final draft. >> second. >> a motion and second. any further comment. are you taking any public
comment? hearing none. public comment. good evening, i was on the grand jury report. anytime that a civil grand jury report is up for discussion, you may want to ask your secretary to invite us by our civil grand jury report. i did watch last week's meeting and you did tremendous work last week. there are a quick few things i would like to point out to you that you can
take into consideration even if you take an action on that. on general orders we included our recommendations because you review policies in that general order. if you look at the officer involved shooting general order, you will look at they are in dire need of revising. it was revised over a decade ago. she was confused when she looked at them and commissioner mazzucco you commented that they don't reflect any of the new technologies. i'm not saying that they need to be speeded up, but if you look you will recognize that they don't separate out what the police department is responsible for and what the d. a. is responsible for. i ask you to take a look a the that. i recognize that you are waiting for the doj's response. if you look at our
recommendations, you don't need to be an expert to understand them and enact them. the current practices that need to be changed to official policy because we think these are vital to -- >> thank you. >> may i ask a question? >> certainly, you may. commissioner hwang has a question. >> i would like to thank you for your work on the civil grand jury, and i think that eventually we will follow through these recommendations after we get through the best practices. was there one or two things that you thought we should get through immediately? >> i have to thank the police department. they are already including information for example on the
websites. i understand there needs to be more town hall meetings and there is a question about whether or not they are effective. anytime we have practices they should be written in a policies because they are so vital to making sure there is transparency every step of the way that it's left to the decision of the police chief or anybody else. they may change based on the whim of that person or the mood of the community and that's when transparency is detrimentally affected. if it's important to have it after one, it's important to have it after every single time so the community is aware of this along the way. we do appreciate that some of these will be along the way. we have that you stated in your draft report that it requires an analysis within an obligation within 6 months after the date of the
report issuance to schedule another on that. that's a reminder so it doesn't fall off the radar screen. i appreciate the fact that this is an on going effort and appreciate the responses guinn an i do hope that many of those items that you say you were going to report further analysis on that that does take place. those of us on the grand jury who were part of this process would love to continue to have that conversation to make sure the information we covered and the recommendations we made are fully vetted so they can be part of the department of justice process and part of the blue ribbon panel so all the best efforts and best practices can come together. >> thank you very much for your work on that. >> any further comment? hearing none, public comment is now closed. with the closing of public comment, i have the appropriate motion
to approve the draft letter dated september 20, 2016. moved by commissioner mazzucco and marshall. i believe a roll call vote is in order? is a roll call vote necessary? okay. no. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> could i just invite the gentlemen's comment, can we calendar it for 5 months out. >> she's already scheduled it. thank you very much. >> i apologize. i actually have handouts that give your draft responses. i would like you to take a look at them to give you an idea. >> public comment is closed. deliver your handouts. >> next item, please. item 4, discussion and possible action
to adopt the department general order, personal use of social media. action. >> okay, commissioners, this is a return item as well. last week we had some comments and some discussions on the social media policy. i believe there have been some updates and i will turn it over to deputy chief who is at the podium to take our comments. >> will you be telling us what the updates are because i can't remember. >> yes. good evening, chief and director hicks. last week when we spoke on this policy the commission asked me to reach out to the department of justice to have them look at the policy to see if this is something we would endorse. the doj stopped accepting recommendations in august. i
did some further research and reviewed the social media and tactical considerations for law enforcement issued by the department of justice and reviewed that and unfortunately that only talks to on duty types of social media. this is more of a conduct type of issue that the department will be looking on this issue of personal use of social media. one thing that i did neglect to mention last week is that we also consulted with dhr and the development of this general order. so with that, those are the updates on this general order. >> great. discussion fellow commissioners? >> did we make some little changes, though. no. >> there are actually no written changes. there were some questions and some comments. i actually looked at some issues on my own. but you are correct. with that, public
stand strong like i do. i have spoken. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. okay. so, we have the draft social media policy. i will entertain an appropriate motion regarding it. >> i move that we accept this draft as the policy. >> second. >> the social media policy has been moved by commissioner melara, seconded by commissioner mazzucco. colleagues, any further comment? hearing none, i believe a voice vote is in order, is that correct? >> second kilshaw.
>> on the motion to accept the social media policy, vice-president turman, how do you vote. >> aye. >> commissioner turm an votes aye. commissioner marshall, how do you vote. aye, commissioner dejesus, aye, commissioner mazzucco, aye, commissioner hwang? thumbs up. commissioner hwang votes aye. commissioner melara votes aye. the motion passes 6-0. >> thank you. that's unanimous. the social media policy is hereby adopted. commission secretary could you please call the next line item. >> item 5 discussion and possible action regarding asks applicants for chief of police if they are
willing to allow the public comment on non-agenda items members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission jurisdiction and not on today's calendar. each speaker shall have up to 3 minutes to make pertinent public comments unless the commission adopts a shorter period. it is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission should fill out a "speaker card" provided by the commission secretary, and submit the completed card applicants for chief of police if they are willing to allow the commissionpublic comment on non-agenda items members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission jurisdiction and not on today's calendar. each speaker shall have up to 3 minutes to make pertinent public comments unless the commission adopts a shorter period. it is strongly recommended that members of the public who wish to address the commission should fill out a "speaker card" provided by the commission secretary, and submit the completed card to the commission secretary.ly 1234 >> and as such we will get the document up on our website as soon as practical. commissioners, there has been some discussion as to certain trends and certain cities about asking finalist about whether or not their comfortable having their names publically disclosed as finalist in the process. i believe that is where we are consideration this evening. let's have an open robust discussion about this. and i think commissioner mazzucco has weighed in. >> just for parliamentary
procedures, since commissioner dejesus is posting this motion, she should go ahead and post it and see if she has a second and then you can have a discussion. if she has a second, then you open it up for discussion. >> well, i believe that commissioner mazzucco should begin this discussion first. if you don't mind, i would like to pass this to commissioner dejesus. >> i have one concern. president loftus is not with us this evening. this is a matter that should be discussed with the full commission. i would feel more comfortable having commissioner loftus with us this evening. i think what commissioner dejesus has proposed is more in detail about line item 5. i have some other issues that may go away
tonight. >> commissioner loftus knew this was on and i told her it was a motion and i showed her the draft i was working on and i tried to put it on a resolution first. she said it can go forward and she doesn't oppose this. so, that should take care of your calls, i have it in writing and i can show it to you. what i did, i just wanted to, i'm making a motion here and what i did was put a rational about why we do that. it's important for the commission to seek trust and confidence about the members of the public and the processes to recruit and evaluate applicants for the chief of police position and the overall quality of the pool of the applicants and the person appointed. we also looked at the president's task
force in the 21st century in order to build public trust and the police commission and department have endorsed that recommendation. i'm certainly an aware the recruitment believes the chief of police to support the movement of reforms that are in accordance with the police department. and value in full transparency over short-term public relations management and considerations recognizing that transparency is a necessity for building trust and a long term building trust is more important than image. the police commission has asked the department to raise the cultural teaching and using body cameras to join the officers and management in
the department in embracing and practicing transparency and also in wake of the president's 21st century policing task force transparency recommendation. over the last year competitive searches for major police department in chicago, san antonio and tucson have all transparency and in reviewing the identity for finalist the chief and police commission and places like seattle and dallas and los angeles. the recruitment brochure does describe chief search as confidential. i am aware of that and so does the commission. that each preferences about if and when to reveal publically that as they have applied for the position must be respected. i
move that immediately that the police commission or representative shall request permission from each finalist to release their identity to the public and upon receiving the finalist responses, the commission shall site simultaneously for consideration publically release the identities and background summaries for finalist who have agreed to do so. that would be my motion. >> okay, so we have a motion. >> i have a friendly amendment that i would offer. sorry. >> she needs to have a motion. >> there is a motion. >> she needs to have a second.
>> is there a second for the motion. the motion as stated, is there a second for the motion? >> i will second and i would like to offer a friendly amendment. >> you may do so. >> i would like to hear at some point. i'm going to throw this out there, i would like to hear from mr. peterson who was hired to advise us on this. and upon interview of candidates that we ask them whether or not they would allow us to release their name if they are one of the three finalist. >> can you clarify that, just the three finalist? >> everyone that we interview we ask if they were to be a finalist to release their names early in the process. >> commissioner dejesus do you accept that amendment? >> yes. >> your amendment and as i
understand your motion it's for the commission or it's representative which would be the agency, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner dejesus? and as i understand your motion, it's the commission or it's representative ie search would do this question? >> correct. >> it's been moved and seconded with the appropriate amendment. now, commissioner marshall? >> one of the things i'm confused about is what's agendaized. because my reading of this no. 5 regarding applicants which they are willing to allow the commission to publically release their name. that's different from what we just stated. in fact when i read this, my
first thought, i can say this, it's 61 people. i don't even know that this was what i just heard is what's agendaized. i'm confused. >> it says, discussed and applicants, the chief of police willing to allow the commission, i have my feelings about it which i will go into it. i thought it was 61 people. these are all the applicants. >> the motion is the finalist. >> that's not what's on here. >> what are you talking about? >> there is a difference between one. >> the agenda item no. 5 and what is now being brought forward. >> i'm going to handle the procedures. you guys are going to have discussion between you. there is a difference between
what commissioner marshall was saying, there is a difference between the agendaized item and what this motion states. and with that, i think a response, commissioner, dejesus. >> i have had 2-3 meetings where i made it very clear that i would like to ask the finalist if they would allow us to disclose their names over and over. i asked it to be agendaized on that matter. you have all been put on notices that this is what i have been asking for. i asked the president to put it on. i sent her the resolution on friday. she had an opportunity to read it. she said it was fine and she couldn't do the resolution. i'm not responsible for the phrasing of the agenda. >> you received a copy. >> but i think it's been very clear what i have been asking for. my new technicality is really unreasonable because if we are going to discuss this, we need to have this on before we go into the interview
process. >> but even your motion is different than what you just stated because now you are saying, release the names, but your motion says release the names and the summary of some sort. >> that's my motion. we can ask the city attorney, is this something that keeps it off the agenda. i don't want to sit here and have a 10-minute discussion on this. >> i don't understand what the question is. what is the question ? >> the question is that the agendaized item for asking applicants from the chief of police. >> when i saw it, i came prepared because there is no specific motion on this no. 1, no. 2, i came prepared thinking i was going to talk about 61 people. what we are talking
about is something different than i prepared to talk about. normally what is being voted on has to be agendaized. and what is being voted on now isn't agendaized for my sake. i have further comments i don't want to get into. but my first issue, this is not an agendaized item. >> i believe that all of these three things are variations upon what's agendaized. which we often do. so i don't know that this is a, this technical issue we are discussing is a barrier to moving forward on the motion before us. that's what they are asking. >> from a legal standpoint, what the legal standard for each item put on the agenda is sufficient information to allow the members of the public sufficient notice to come and decide whether it's a discussion item they want to participate in.
that's the purpose of putting this item on the agenda. whether it's for a member of the public that hasn't been following, picks up the agenda and has sufficient information in order to participate in the discussion. it doesn't require someone to be following along from the beginning of time. it is sufficient information for someone of average intelligence to come in and participate in the discussion. >> fair enough. with that i believe this motion is carried. we can proceed with the discussion on the motion. right? is that concluded. commissioner marshall? >> i was just saying it's fine. again, i'm just telling you what i was thinking. this is different than what was agendaized.
>> i understand your point of view but it seems from a legal perspective that it's broad enough and that you would prefer something to be more specific, because of this situation it's very broad, this follows the nature of it under the agenda item. >> so i'm looking at 3- 4 that what we are going to vote on. it's fine. i'm going to tell you what i thought what i saw it. i was surprised because i didn't think that was only table. >> commissioner melara? >> you know, i have a problem with the motion and my problem has to do with the main reason the motion is on the table and that's an issue of transparency. the brochure since i worked on it, the brochure did not indicate,
did not have a disclaimer that the process would be without notification. this is truth in advertising. when we put something out it says what we meant and it is what we mean. so, my feeling is that if we were to ask these these number of people that we are going to interview and one of them did not make it to the final process, they would have a legal ground to challenge the process because they were not chosen and even if they were not chosen for the right reasons. so i have a real problem with this and i would vote against this. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you, i want to express my concerns. similar to commissioner melara. we are changing the rules in the
middle of the process. whether that's fair to the applicant is a big concern. they applied for this job knowing that their application would be kept confidential, and with with reference to the external candidates as can expect many of them are working for other police agencies. it's no secret there. it puts them in a spot with their agency if their mayor or chief knew they were doing this. they applied knowing this. i have a problem with changing the rules in the middle of the process. secondly, i think this affects the integrity and the quality of our search. i anticipate that we'll probably lose some applicants that they hear this will be an issue that they will be disclosed. i hear in the process and as commissioner loftus, we did get a lot of applicants. the question is transparency
and accountability. very important things. sometimes it gets lost in the context. we have the civilian body, representatives, we have been chosen by the mayor and the board of supervisors empowered with this incredible obligation and responsibility to represent the community and deciding what applicants we want to forward to the mayor. we did that through 5 community meetings and did that everywhere we gone and received input and from the various peg groups of the various police officers associations. i heard from the 300 plus people when i was at pacific heights and what they were looking for in a chief. that's our role and that's why i do this job. with all that in mind, i think the quality of the process would be affected. i have done this before. i have seen what happens when there is
speculation about the names of the candidates, when there is speculation about the number of candidates internal and external. i see what it's done for the process even there. we have agreed that we would keep this confidential, with we finished our lasts meeting of the commission, we finished our non-disclosure where the results were and where we are at. that's what we need to do is maintain the confidentiality for those people serving the people in the city. i vote against the motion. well, we have a vote. commissioner hwang. >> i would agree with what the commissioner said if this is an amended self disclosure. that language would be a motion that during interviews with the candidates that the police commission or it's representatives shall ask each finalist if they are willing to release their identity and
interested in a brief summary. it's no the a mandatory. i agree with the employment and other possible things. we are not changing the rules that much. we are asking if they are willing to do it. it's not a requirement that they do this. i spoke to the general media and they may give reasons why they are not willing to disclose. if they are willing to do it. >> that's a good point. let me ask commissioner dejesus this. i'm the chair of the meeting. i can have prerogatives here. commissioner dejesus, if we have -- by the way, we keep using this term finalist. by the way, the rule is 3- 5 finalist by the way. i'm going throw that out there. hello, media 3- 5 finalist.
so, if one or even two of the finalist say, i don't want my name publically released? >> we don't do it. i think it's a discussion among us to say it's three. we are not changing a thing. we didn't think about this and given what's been going on in the community this last year, they have heightened concerns regarding the selection of a new chief. there has been information in the paper that this is a fixed process, a charade. we talk about transparency. this is an opportunity to practice transparency. we are not threatening them. we are
asking. is a mere question. i agree that all five should agree. if they don't, then we don't do it. we don't want to be unfair to any candidate. it's merely asking a question. we have to have a backbone, guys, asking the questions don't hurt. it gives the public an opportunity to look at the caliber of the candidates being presented to the mayor. they know who they are and they know who the backgrounds are and they know the mayor has a real choices in front of him and it's great for the opportunity and they know how the process is resolved. trying to put it out on a technicality or i disagree with it it's really asking a harmless question. >> perhaps if we keep going
we can ask the person who their intent is hiring. >> you said something that i want to check as well. i will let commissioner hwang ask the question. >> to get his thoughts around what the chief's search process is. is there a change in thinking? >> no problem. i would agree that the trend is to disclose the finalist. it has been the trend throughout the country. there have been several searches. for example houston did not disclose their finalist. and other cities have and i spoke to one of the finalist today for a recent search in arizona, there is two of them. i'm not going to name the actual person, but he subsequently lost his job because his name was disclosed. that's what we
are dealing with folks that are currently employed who work for a mayor or a legislative body that has the power to release them without cause. that concerns me and it concerns that if you do vote to disclose that -- >> that's not what we are voting on. we are asking the person if they are willing to let us disclose. >> do you actually need a vote to do that? >> yes. >> let me ask this as a follow up. sorry, commissioner marshall. >> listening to about what the trend is. i'm concerned that we told people it was going to be confidential. >> exactly. >> in the brochure it describes the chief of police the search is confidential. >> you make a good point. i echo that. >> let me get this out before
you take it away. to me, you can't tell people it's confidential and go back and say, i changed my mind. there are several things. i don't believe you can do that. if we had told them upfront that this is what we are going to do because to me, let me give you a scenario. here is what will go through my mind. i'm applying and whatever reason i have got i'm applying and then i say, i want you to disclose and i want to know if your name is going to be disclosed because this is about for whatever reason for transparency sake. first my thought is what if i say no are they going to look at me. no. 2, and i have this whole thing about transparency. every once in a
while this word comes along that they beat you over the head. transparency is a thing. under transparency, does that mean if i don't give it does that mean i'm not being transparent. that is a process we are already into. and to go back to change the rules of the game. if we had done this ahead of time, i wouldn't have had a problem with it. but incompetent inject something like this because it causes doubt and changes the process and i don't think it's right. >> it is written in the book that it is confidential. to the entire commission i expressed my word that it was confidential to the candidates that i recruited. >> it is confidential. >> all right. so let me again exercising my prerogative. i'm going to jump in here for a second. commissioner dejesus what she's proposing is not that
we break confidentiality. what she's proposing is that we ask if they are okay with it. i don't think the commission should do that. our designate or should do that because i don't want there to be that pressure. so, with that understanding in your experience, you've done more chief searches, is that, with that understanding and we are not going to disclose someone's name and they are going to lose their job and the other situation. we haven't heard the other situation. is it possible we should actually lose applicants by asking this question moving down these lines. >> that's calling for
speculation. >> it's not speculation. >> i think it's a trust issue. it's a trust between the candidates and me and the candidates in you. the press has already reported that there is 11 candidates. >> how did that happen? >> right. >> so us saying that it's not going to be disclosed, the three names not going to be disclosed unless everyone agrees. i don't know how that's going to ring true to the media. >> all right. commissioner hwang? >> i think we should offer it as a remedy because there is this leak. i was concerned to get a call from the media not only that the number was leaked by somebody but there were internal candidates leaked as well and that would raise concerns
with internal and external applicants. that they may have an advantage now because there is an -- apparent speculation. the process is different now. in some ways we are trying to equalize this to say, hey, okay, we reassure you and you will not be penalized if you don't want to reveal, but some applicants have been put out there and we want to give you an opportunity to equalize the playing field and try to make this a fair process. >> okay. >> commissioner mazzucco? >> thank you, in the police department that you mentioned earlier, the ones that actually released the names to the public, did those police department's have civilian oversight in the police commission that actually represents the community at the community meetings that does the three selections that brings it to
the mayor? >> i'm not sure. i think a couple of them do but most of them do not. >> some of them do and i don't think it's relevant to the question. >> commissioner marshall? >> to me that's what the candidate is. if you go to me and ask me and i say no. to me, i don't know how they are going to look at me based on what i say. to me, that's grossly unfair. >> commissioner dejesus? >> it's real simple. yes or no. we are so concerned about asking this question, we are not that concerned about the big
elephant in the room that someone is talking to the press. that's the biggest concern that you should have. you are really worried about asking a question in private to a candidate but you don't seem to be worried about information released. we were the only people in that room so that's very disturbing. i think the big fight we are having here is ridiculous. we are asking a simple question. we are not holding it against them. it's a real word and this time it's transparency. you can make fun of it all you want but it's a real important word. >> i do have concerns that
doing this somehow equalizes the issue. i do have concerns about changing the process. i don't know how the people who went into this believing it is confidential now somehow believe that you know us doing this somehow protects and changes things so that they are somehow better off. i don't quite understand that. but, at this point we have a motion. it's been seconded. is there any further comment here before i call for public comment? >> call the vote. >> public comment. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you. public speaker: yes, it's true. a few
things quickly. it remains a confidential process. the finalist has complete control whether or not their name will be released. it is not in the process. they control the cards. secondly, this idea that there was somehow a decision by this body made to have the applicants. there was no discussion here, right? if you are that focused on 1 word in a recruitment brochure, i hope you have the same vigilance in that brochure about the level of experience and the candidates and the people kwauld -- qualified for this job. as the one example at the 21st century task force doesn't take the simple step of asking candidates. tucson, fort worth and all of those, the los angeles police
commission has done it twice. dallas, you ask what cities have civilian overnight. los angeles, tucson. i don't have the full list. the question tonight is and i haven't heard the argument, if post 20th century task force, if after all this city has been through that this is a common step to increase confidence in your process and ultimately increase confidence in whom ever you hire. the candidate controls. you can even say change the motion. there would be no adverse consequence to say no. to send the message that this process in san francisco was going to be significantly more secretive will we reinforce the message that is out there that suspicion that
this is rigged and you may lose candidates. >> thank you. public speaker: i just want to say something. i heard commissioner dejesus talk about the trust and the confidence that all of us have in all of you to move this process forward. it's after all your process. i think it concerns me that when i heard here, i think if there is any question on anyone's mind on this panel, i think this should be tabled and you define what needs to have happen. i see the city attorney sitting here and i heard what she said. i don't necessarily agree with it, but at the end of the day all of you are police commissioners and here to do a job. please, unfortunately, this thing is televised.
what i'm seeing here is very painful to see. please, if there is any question in your minds, table it. what's a week more. to be honest with you having done this before, people are a little tenuous putting their name in because their jobs are in jeopardy. they really are. their jobs are in jeopardy. because if a mayor finds out that you have no loyalty to this city in this police department, i have no loyalty to you as you heard already and some folks have been discharged and sent home. thank you, commissioners, i know it's a hard job. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i like no. 5. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
public speaker: i like it. >> thank you, ms. johnson. next speaker, please. public speaker: director hicks, commissioners, chief chaplain. i think this is really important that including more transparency in this process is really important for the city right now. there has been so many issues in the media and in conversations about problems with the police chief search that i think that adding this basic level of transparency is really important. other cities, you heard that other cities are doing it. many of those cities do have oversight and involve community members in the process. in fact the city of oakland right now is planning to release the
names of their finalist. the city of oakland is also including community members on the interview panel, and i think that's a really important part of the process. city of san jose has done this as well. so, that's another step you can take to increase trust in the process. so, this basic request to release with permission to release the names i think is just something that's very basic and could add credibility and trust in your process. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, i have been here since may and i'm good with the discussions here but i don't see why there should be an action because you know, police in america, they are no angels, they are no marines, they are part of the public. we are all public,
police are just like humans like we are, they bleed, they cry, they hurt. some are treated bad, some are treated good. i'm just shocked that, well, i'm not shocked, but i know that this is a time for america in the world, you know, police not just belongs to the police association, it belongs to all of us. one thing donald trump was right about on the radio. we don't have tv in the building. i get a lot of information from radios. thank god for the radio station that the world has not gobbled up to get some trust. we are all polices. we all want to be saved.
there is no separating from brotherhood and fatherhood and life. what's going on in america and san francisco, other people have to be where you are in that and not release a name. the president can be released his name. can't nobody we want a job to be a chief of police. we need to know what's going on. who is the officer and what is your commitment and do you need to be doing something else. if we didn't have medical marijuana we would die because we wouldn't have enough medicine or guns in america. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, karen freshman from the woods coalition and san franciscan for police accountability. i was with the nieto family.
it is been 2 years since it was found. we did not move heaven and earth to get chief suhr removed to come to find out who his replace many will be when mayor lee pins this name to his chest. let's let the next one be a success. we have to know. we have to be a part of this process. i attended the meetings. it was a first. it was not a real way to get community input. we need to know who those finalist are an we need to know what the experience leading a modern accountable police
department a 21st century police department. that is what we need in a new chief. let's be clear. if you do not engage that person from day one, that person not going to be able to establish the trust in this community. they are going to be set up for failure, you will be set up for failure, the mayor will be set up for failure. let's look at the big picture, guys, and focus on what is most important. >> further public comment? public speaker: hi, folks. i just want to give my support for requesting that our candidates, our applicants
for police chief disclose their candidacy. i think it's important. i know when i go to a new job, i risk my current job finding out if i'm interviewing at a new place. i don't think that is something that is -- to this process. i heard the word transparency. we are seeing, this all over the news about police forces not being transparent enough. we in san francisco, we can't fall behind in trying to make that happen. you know, the rest of the country, it sounds like other cities are doing that. we don't want to get
left behind in the pursuit of transparency. so, we have accountable and transparent police forces. i would just like to voice my support in asking requesting, it's not mandatory, it's a request that the candidates disclose their candidacy. >> thank you, mr. casey. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed.>> so we have a motion that's been moved and seconded. yes, i am going to make a comment. commissioner loftus' attendance record is so good that i ever get to
sit in this commission chair. and i have seen her on occasion use her prerogative to make such a statement. i'm going to make a statement. i have heard a lot of comments about this process. some open-ended allegations with no support such as farce. open-ended allegations about untrustworthy process and all we've heard on it which is all fueled by not necessarily anything wrong with this process, but by other people and their motivations who come in here and start talking about transparency and they need to be more transparent about the reasons they are coming in here and shooting down this process. they don't want to give us a chance for our jobs or the police new police chief a chance at his or her job, that's up to
you, but we've endeavored to be a fair and open process. it's not for anyone candidate. it is done on a national outreach basis to hire a candidate and it's garnered support and interest from all over and not just the united states but outside of it. i resent to sit here every week to punch holes in the hard work that we do everyday. i'm going to base a vote on what i need to be done to continue the integrity of this process. whether or not you think it has been a process with integrity, that's up to you. i don't care because i have reached out, we've all reached out. we have talked to people and tried to endeavor new ideas and new thoughts and reform to this
process and to reach new people and new ideas. if that is something that the people who come here claim to represent the entire community which is very different than at the mails -- e-mails that we get and some of the calls and concerns, that's fine, but we are going to make a decision based on the reason we were chosen to get here and the information we are getting from the entire public. i call the vote. >> vice-president, just to clarify i have the motion to make sure it's correct. >> i'm going to let commissioner dejesus to answer whether or not it's clear. >> commissioner dejesus, i have the motion that the police commission or it's representatives shall request permission from each finalist for chief of police during the
interview. if each finalist is willing to release his or her identity and a brief summary of the his or her background to the mayor on the public. upon receiving responses from each finalist, the commission shall release and forward summaries. the release of the names will be contingent on all finalist. i want to make sure i have that correct. >> that sounds right. >> so on the motion and friendly amendment that the police commission or it's representatives shall request permission from each finalist for chief of police during each interview if each finalist is willing to release his name and brief summary of background and upon release of each finalist, the police commission will forward the finalist to the
mayor for consideration publically release the background and summaries. the release of the names will be contingent on all finalist. vice-president turman, how do you vote, no. vice-president turman votes no. commissioner marshall, how do you vote.? no. commissioner marshall votes no. commissioner dejesus, how do you vote? yes. commissioner mazzucco votes no, commissioner hwang, how do you vote? yes. commissioner melara, how do you vote? no. the motion fails. 2-4. >> madam secretary, call the next line item. >> item 6. public comment.
the public is now able to comment on items that are not on the agenda. speaker shall address their remarks as a whole and not refer to personnel. under the commission rules of order under public comment neither personnel nor commissioners are required to respond the questions but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain however from entering in any debate to public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. 2 minutes. public speaker: good evening. i have lived in san francisco my entire life. i had a member in my community reach out to me related to an issue that happened in 2015. that's almost 2 years ago.
at that time there was a lot of boisterous conversations and this woman failed pulling out her cellphone and videotaping the incident between her and the police officers. she was arrested and detained and she had to go to court. to make a long story short, the case was dismissed and at the time her cellphone was taken. this is a single mom raising her children by herself. she went three times. three times she was told that he was unavailable and never got returned calls. last time i think she was told that he had a broken foot and not
available. commissioners, at a time when we should be working feverishly to instill trust and confidence in the public, we have one individual doing something like this. it reflects on every man and woman in this department because they think that under authority, they can abuse authority and steal property from a citizen. i think it's absurd. i hope you take this seriously. i hope the chief takes it seriously. it's up acceptable. he is supposed to enforce the law, not break the law.
i think it is fun for them, they see our work process, our discussions, the decisions we make. it is good for us. we kind of behavior little bit when we have people in the audience. msk (music) >> we are rehearsing for our most expensive tour; plus two concerts here. we are proud that the growth of the orchestra, and how it is expanded and it is being accepted. my ambition when i came on as music director here -- it was evident we needed absolutely excellent work. also evident to me that i thought everyone should know that. this was my purpose. and after we opened,
which was a spectacular opening concert about five weeks after that the economy completely crashed. my plan -- and i'm absolutely dogmatic about my plans --were delayed slightly. i would say that in this very difficult timefor the arts and everyone, especially the arts, it's phenomenal how new century has grown where many unfortunate organizations have stopped. during this period we got ourselves on national radio presence; we started touring, releasing cds, a dvd. we continue to tour. reputation grows and grows and grows and it has never stopped going forward. msk(music)
>> the bay area knows the orchestra. you maybe take things for granted a little bit. that is simply not the case will go on the road. the audiences go crazy. they don't see vitality like this on stage. we are capable of conveying joy when we play. msk(music) >> any performance that we do, that a program, that will be something on the program that you haven't heard before. string orchestra repertoire is pretty small. i used to be boxed into small repertoire. i kept constantly looking for new repertoire and commissioning new arrangements. if you look at the first of the program you have very early,
young vibrant mendelson; fabulous opener and then you have this fabulous concerto written for us in the orchestra. is our gift. msk(music) >> and then you have strauss, extraordinary piece. the most challenging of all. string orchestra work. 23 solo instrument, no violin section, now viola section; everybody is responsible for their part in this piece. the challenge is something that i felt not only that we could do , absolutely could do,
but i wanted to show off. i can't tell you how aware i am of the audience. not only what i hear but their vibes, so strong. i have been doing this for a long time. i kind of make them feel what i want them to feel. there is nobody in that audience or anywhere that is not going to know that particular song by the fourth note. and that is our encore on tour. by the way. i am proud to play it, we are from san francisco. we are going to play that piece